City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 24, 2024
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 46
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolutions for Amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, Bergamot Area Plan, Downtown Community Plan; and Introduction for First Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Text of the Zoning Ordinance for Phase 2 Implementation of the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Addendum, and no further review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required;
2. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan for Consistency with the Goals, Policies, and Programs Set Forth in the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element, and Making Other Minor Changes, Corrections and Clarifications;
3. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Bergamot Area Plan to Repeal Chapter 5, Development Standards and Land Use Regulations, for Integration of Those Provisions into the Zoning Ordinance;
4. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Downtown Community Plan for consistency with the Goals, Policies, and Programs set forth in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, and Making Other Minor Changes, Corrections and Clarifications; and
5. Introduce for First Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with the Goals, Policies, and Programs Set forth in the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element; to Allow for the Separate Conveyances of Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with AB 1033; Incorporate Interim Zoning Regulations Authorizing the Establishment of Objective Design Standards for Housing Projects that Qualify for the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Established by SB35; Integrate Development Standards and Land Use Regulations for the Bergamot Area Plan, with Amendments for Consistency with the Goals, Policies and Programs Set Forth in the 6th Cycle 2 of 46
Housing Element, Updates to Development Standards for Non-Housing Projects, and Other Minor Amendments for Consistency with the Zoning Ordinance; for Consistency with Recent Updates to State Housing Law; and Making Other Minor Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications.
Summary
On October 14, 2022, the State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) certified the City’s 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element. The certified Housing Element represents the City’s commitment to implement the Housing Element programs and meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) in compliance with State Housing Element Law.
On March 21, 2023 and April 11, 2023, Council adopted amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), and Zoning Ordinance to implement the first phase of the certified Housing Element programs. These Phase 1 programs consisted of Programs 1.A, 1.F,
1.J, 2.C, 2.D, and 4.A and provided for streamlined approvals of housing projects, streamlined design review of housing projects, revised development standards for housing projects, modified inclusionary requirements in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, and an updated Density Bonus Ordinance.
The second phase of implementation programs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element is due by either October 2024 or December 2024, per the commitment in the certified Housing Element. Study sessions were conducted with the Planning Commission and City Council on May 8, 2024 and June 11, 2024, respectively, for staff to provide an update regarding implementation of Phase 2 programs and to receive initial policy direction. This report presents the proposed amendments to Council for these Phase 2 programs based on Council’s prior direction and the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
The report provides a summary of changes related to seven Phase 2 Housing Element programs and highlights two substantive Phase 2 programs: Program 1.H which is 3 of 46
being implemented through a new Adaptive Reuse Ordinance and Program 1.E, which is being implemented through development of new standards in the Bergamot area.
In response to Council’s direction to explore approaches to maximize open space in the Bergamot area, this report presents an open space strategy that seeks to substantially increase open space requirements through revised open space standards. In addition, Council is being asked to consider an optional special process incentive that would allow housing projects on sites over one acre to voluntarily opt into providing specified commitments around dedicated public space and unit mix in exchange for the housing project to be processed through an administrative approval (i.e. no formal public hearing). The special process incentive is a new concept that is not required for Housing Element compliance but is being brought forth to be responsive to Council direction.
Discussion
Planning Commission Action
On August 7, 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments and voted 6-0 (1 absent) to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed amendments with the following changes:
• Bergamot Area Plan
o Process Incentive Program for Large Parcels – adjustment of minimum ground floor open space for parcels over 1 acre; add a requirement that up to 25% of ground floor open space can be covered by a projection or habitable building space so long as the projection does not encroach below 20 feet
o Fences, Walls and Hedges for Private Open Space Adjacent to the Public Right of Way – allow fences, wall and hedges up to 54 inches in height for private open space adjacent to public right of way for residential uses • Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
o Replacement Parking – do not require replacement parking 4 of 46
o Highlight Incentives for Historic Preservation Projects – highlight available incentives for adaptive reuse projects that are designated historic resources
• Implementation of State law (SB 684)
o Allow rental housing projects to have the same side yard setback (i.e. 4 feet) as ownership housing projects
Further, the Commission recommends that the Council consider a tax rebate for properties that are transferred for the purposes of 100% affordable housing.
The City of Santa Monica committed to implementing Phase 2 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element by October 15, 2024. To implement Phase 2 programs listed in the Housing Element, and to achieve the level of housing production mandated by the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, BAP, DCP, and LUCE are required to implement and ensure consistency with State law and the goals, policies, and programs in the Housing Element.
This report is organized as follows:
• Major Phase 2 Housing Element Programs
o Program 1.H (Adaptive Reuse)
o Program 1.E (Revise the Design Standards in the Bergamot Area Plan) • Summary of Remaining Mandatory Phase 2 Housing Element Programs o Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) o Program 1.I (Innovations in Construction Technology)
o Program 2.B (Right of First Offer Ordinance)
o Program 2.C (Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program – Part 2)
o Program 2.I (Zoning for Variety of Housing Types)
o Program 3.A (Restrict the Removal of Existing Rental and Protected Units)
o Program 3.E (Maintain a Low-Income Residential Repair Program) 5 of 46
o Program 5.B (Low Barrier Navigation Centers as By-Right Use) • Changes for Consistency with State Law
• Other Changes Necessary for Clean Up and Clarity
The following provides a summary of the proposed changes to the Zoning and Land Division Ordinances, BAP, DCP, and LUCE to implement these programs based on the comments and direction received from the Planning Commission on May 8, 2024, and from City Council on June 11, 2024. The specific language of the proposed amendments is included as Attachments A - D.
Consequences of Not Implementing the Housing Element / Falling Out of Compliance If the City does not meet the implementation deadlines in the Housing Element, the City will be out of compliance and will not be able to be in compliance until rezoning is completed and subject to the consequences detailed below.
Consequences of Being out of Compliance in Short Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point
Summary
Housing
Accountability
Act: 65589.5(d)(1)
& (5)(B)
“Builder’s
Remedy” projects
Housing Element
is out of
compliance
• Projects with at least 20% affordable to
60% AMI or 100% Moderate could be
proposed in excess of zoning or general
plan maximums
• Conditions cannot render the project
infeasible
• New builder’s remedy legislation is
pending Governor’s approval as part of
the current legislative session both
clarifies applicability of builder’s remedy
and also a new option that places density
limits but allows combination of builder’s
remedy with SB330, State density bonus
law, and AB2011 or SB35
6 of 46
Consequences of Being out of Compliance in Short Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point
Summary
Housing funding
programs
dependent on
Housing Element
compliance
Housing Element
is out of
compliance
• Ineligible for funding programs where the
City has previously been awarded funding
for affordable housing such as Local
Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) and
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
• Others include Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities program
(AHSC), SB1, and SB2
Consequences in Long Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger Point Summary
Senate Bill 35
(65400, 65582.1,
65913.4)
• Starting with April 1,
2023, Annual Progress
Report (APR) to HCD,
determination by HCD
that Santa Monica has
not issued sufficient
building permits to meet
pro-rated RHNA for
market rate units and
lower-income units
• Determination typically
made in June reviewing
data from January 1 –
December 1, 2022
Requires ministerial approval (no
public hearing) for projects that
include minimum percentage of
affordability and meet SB35
preconditions
• If Above Moderate (i.e.
market-rate) RHNA not
met, then projects with at
least 10% affordability
• If Lower Income RHNA
not met than projects with
at least 50% affordability
City can only impose objective
standards, including for design
review
7 of 46
The above table highlights primarily the City’s obligations to approve projects and potential impacts to funding for affordable housing, but it should be noted that being out of compliance also means that the State can seek judicial relief in addition to imposing substantial penalties and fines.
➢ Program 1.H Adaptive Reuse of Existing Commercial Buildings for Permanent Residential Use
Program Language:
“As an alternative to constructing new housing, the City shall encourage and incentivize the adaptive reuse of existing commercial tenant space for permanent residential use and also allow an adaptive reuse of existing ground floor commercial space for artists and live-work use. The City shall also adopt policy and zoning changes to incentivize the conversion of existing commercial tenant space to residential use, such as relaxing parking, unit mix, open space, and other typical zoning or building code requirements.”
Summary of Changes:
Section 9.31.135, Adaptive Reuse Housing Projects, would be added to the Zoning Ordinance to incentivize the adaptive reuse (AR) of existing buildings for residential uses. The Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) is based on the following guiding principles:
1. Establish incentives for conversion of existing commercial space in underutilized buildings to residential use as an alternative to new construction
2. Provide a feasible alternative for smaller scale housing projects as a counterbalance to larger density bonus projects, specifically for parcels in the residential and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning District
3. As a new program, commit to revisions to the ARO if standards are not incentivizing adaptive reuse projects
8 of 46
A recent study conducted by SPUR and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in San Francisco indicates that adaptive reuse of office for residential is most likely in older buildings (pre1980) with floor plates of between 12,000 sf to 20,000 sf.1 Based on a review of existing building data, approximately 67 buildings in the City meet these criteria. While this study indicates the potential for adaptive reuse in larger scale buildings in the Bay area, the City’s commercial building inventory and high office vacancy rate (20%) indicates that there are also untapped opportunities for smaller scale adaptive reuse projects. This is evidenced in inquiries that staff has received recently from various property owners regarding the partial conversion of existing vacant space in commercial buildings. Shaping the program to incentivize adaptive reuse of these building types would address the first principle above.
To better understand the physical parameters of potential adaptive reuse incentives, staff engaged Omgivning, a Los Angeles-based architecture firm, to conduct physical feasibility modelling of adaptive reuse for various existing commercial buildings in the City (Attachment E). The modelling generally demonstrated the following:
• Feasibility of additions on top of existing buildings depend on the building type.
For example, existing buildings that have small footprints (i.e. covers less than half the site) or shape of existing roof are less likely to support building additions due to the significant cost of construction.
• Where there is space available on the parcel, side or rear additions would increase financial feasibility of adaptive reuse projects but would ideally need to be detached to ensure greater flexibility with building code requirements (such as allowances for windows, egress/ingress, stairs, etc.).
• Retaining existing parking has implications for the scale of rear and side additions because the parking becomes the first story, which physically constrains the new addition.
• Limiting the bonus floor area in the side or rear addition to 100% of existing building size is insufficient where an existing building covers less than 50% of the 1 https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/SPUR_From_Workspace_to_Homebase.pdf 9 of 46
parcel area and where parcels are less than 15,000 square feet. These are predominantly located in the NC. As a result, the proposal has evolved to provide new incentives specific to the NC zone where the vast majority of lots are under 15,000 sf, which addresses the second principle above. • In the Residential and NC Zoning Districts where many of the existing commercial buildings are one-story and ground-floor active commercial uses is required (per the Zoning Ordinance), flexibility is needed to allow for the new residential units to be in the new construction (rather than requiring it within the existing building envelope).
As informed by the modeling, staff proposes the following concepts to be implemented into the ARO:
• Bonus Floor Area on Top: Adaptive Reuse (AR) projects are eligible for bonus floor area to be located on top of the existing building to increase financial feasibility, but this bonus would be limited to appropriate scale of the existing building and site. As proposed, the ARO is drafted to permit all AR projects to include new construction on top of the existing building not exceeding 2 stories and 24 feet.
• Bonus Floor Area in Rear/Side with Incentives for Small Lots: Additionally, AR projects may include bonus floor area in the side or rear with the following limitations:
o Residential and NC Zoning Districts: New construction in the side/rear cannot exceed one story above the existing building.
o All other Zoning Districts: New construction in the side/rear is limited to 100% of the existing building floor area and cannot exceed one story above the existing building. The 100% floor area limitation would ensure that the spirit of adaptive reuse of the site is retained, and that new construction would not be out of scale/context with the existing building to be adaptively reused.
10 of 46
• Allowance for Enclosures of Covered Outdoor Walkways and Similar Spaces at the Ground Level: AR projects may also add floor area through the enclosure of existing covered arcades, atriums, paseos, walkways, and corridors located at the ground level (subject to the 100% floor area limitations above for parcels in the commercial zones, exclusive of NC). This allowance would allow projects to convert inactive and underutilized covered outdoor spaces near existing street frontages to residential use.
• Residential Units in Adaptive Reuse Projects: To qualify for the ARO:
o Residential and NC Zoning Districts: New residential units can either be in the existing building envelope or the new construction. This allowance helps to preserve existing ground floor commercial businesses. o All other Zoning Districts: New residential units must be in the existing building envelope and within the new construction (if added).
Based on these concepts, the ARO ordinance would establish the following:
Eligibility for AR projects
• Must occur within existing building envelope and not result in demolition as defined by Zoning Ordinance
• Permitted to include “bonus floor area” that would be entitled to the incentives as previously described
• Must result in the creation of a minimum of 2 dwelling units • For AR projects in the Residential and NC Zoning Districts, new residential units can be located either in the existing building or the new construction on the same parcel
• Limited to the conversion of:
o Nonresidential land use to Multiple Dwelling Unit use (except for hotel/motel conversions – which would only be permitted for 100% affordable housing projects)
o Nonresidential land use to live-work in nonresidential districts 11 of 46
o Any building in a residential district to Multiple Dwelling use (so long as it has never been used for multiple dwelling use)
o Any existing floor area to 100% affordable housing or Extremely Affordable Adaptive Reuse Project as defined in Government Code Section 65913.12
Procedures for AR Projects
• AR projects would be processed as administrative approvals • AR projects would be exempt from all impact fees, except for the Parks and Recreation impact fee
• AR projects would be exempt from Chapter 9.64 Affordable Housing Production Program
o In their study sessions, the Planning Commission and Council directed staff to provide further information regarding the feasibility of requiring compliance with the AHPP for AR projects. Based on results of the City of Los Angeles’ feasibility study on adaptive reuse projects, research in other cities with adaptive reuse ordinances, and discussions with adaptive reuse experts from the Technical Working Group, the inclusionary requirements of the AHPP would render adaptive reuse projects financially infeasible.
This is due to the significantly high cost associated with reusing an existing older building and bringing the building up to current code, particularly seismic code. Therefore, staff recommends that the AHPP requirements be waived for AR projects to maximize feasibility.
Incentives
AR projects would be eligible for certain incentives. These incentives would vary depending on the zoning district and consist of modifications from the following development standards as indicated in the proposed amendments (Attachment D). 12 of 46
Residential Districts Non-Residential Districts
• Density Limits
• Floor Area Ratios (where
applicable)
• Stories and Building Height
• Parcel Coverage
• Setbacks
• Stepbacks
• Transitional Requirements
Adjacent to R1 District
• Open Space & Landscaping
• Unit Mix
• Bicycle Parking
• Vehicle Parking
• Floor Area Ratios
• Building Height
• Setback
• Stepbacks
• Daylight Plane
• Open Space & Landscaping.
• Unit Mix
• Bicycle Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Policy Question #1:
Should adaptive reuse projects consisting of partial conversion be required to retain existing parking for the land use to remain?
Section 9.28.030 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a new housing project is only required to maintain or replace at least 50% of the existing on-site parking serving an existing use to be retained. As illustrated in the modeling, the retention of existing parking for AR projects has design and cost implications for the side/rear additions. The Planning Commission recommended that ARO projects should not be required to replace any parking.
➢ Program 1.E Revise the Design Standards in The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) For Easier Understanding and To Support Housing Production Program Language:
“The City shall modify the design guidelines in the BAP to establish objective standards to support housing production by increasing certainty for housing providers. The revisions to design standards will address at minimum: building modulation, ground floor uses, street frontages/pedestrian orientation, open 13 of 46
space, reduction in parking minimums, live/work artist and commercial living situations, etc. The standards shall be user-friendly with improved clarity to support housing production. The BAP should also consider the special housing needs of artists, such as live-work units, to promote artist residents in the Bergamot area.”
Summary of Changes
The Bergamot area consists of larger parcels compared to other districts in the City and at times with smaller street widths. The current Bergamot Area Plan sets forth a vision for a recommended network of new streets, bikeways, and pedestrian paths intended to improve overall circulation through existing blocks of large parcels (see Figure 7.01, page 207 Bergamot Area Plan, Attachment G).
The proposed objective development standards seek to advance the Bergamot Area Plan’s vision by shaping the area with a residential sensibility as multi-unit residential 14 of 46
projects are realized. Based on the new allowable residential building heights and floor area ratio in the BAP, establishing updated standards that shape the larger building envelope for housing projects will be necessary, including upper-level modulation requirements. Other proposed changes include updating open space and alternate strategies to create walkable streets and adequate pedestrian circulation through largersized parcels as residential use expands within the BAP.
For ease of use and implementation, Chapter 5 of the Bergamot Area Plan (development standards and land use regulations) is being repealed in its entirety and moved into the Zoning Ordinance as new Chapter 9.12 (see 8/7/24 Planning Commission staff report for summary of how the existing BAP standards are being revised/replaced). The remainder of the Bergamot Area Plan will remain in place.
Chapter 9.12 of the Zoning Ordinance is a new chapter that includes land uses and development standards that will govern the Bergamot area. The following highlights the changes to the land use classifications and development standards in the Bergamot area.
Summary Highlights of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.12
Allowable Land Uses
In order to be consistent with land uses established in all zoning districts, the land use table has been revised and updated since the Bergamot Area Plan pre-dated the 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update which included a comprehensive update to land use classifications. The 2015 update resulted in inconsistent land use classifications in the Bergamot Area Plan that were, in some cases, termed differently, undefined in the zoning ordinance, or were missing from the BAP. Revisions include aligning land use review with the 2015 update, transferring land uses from BAP overlay zones that are being removed, simplifying the review process of land uses consistent with recent changes made for economic recovery, and clerical changes. The revised land use table brings the Bergamot Area Plan land use table into alignment with the Zoning Ordinance reducing confusion in implementation.
15 of 46
Development Standards
The proposed revised development standards for the BAP are based upon the objective design standards that the City Council reviewed in December 2023 as part of the SCAG Objective Design Standards grant. These draft objective standards have become the baseline set of standards in this second phase of standards reviewed by the technical working group and Architectural Review Board and have essentially remained unchanged. As reviewed by Council in 2023, these standards included the following:
• Build-to Line
• Ground floor active use and pedestrian-oriented design • Modulation and Stepback Standards (street, side, daylight plane, roofline) • Ground Level Pathways
The proposed BAP standards are modelled after the Downtown Community Plan (DCP), which provide clarity and objectivity in the requirements while also providing flexibility in building design. The standards are also intended to address the overall BAP vision of a new walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood. With the introduction of substantially more housing units than the BAP originally contemplated, there is a need to create standards that support the daily needs of future residents including services and social gathering spaces.
Accordingly, staff has developed open space and taller building standards that seek to incentivize and create meaningful ground level open space. Building frontage requirements at the sidewalk are also included to create walkable neighborhoods, centralized active ground floor commercial uses and services for residents along central streets such as Nebraska and Pennsylvania. Also proposed are standards that address residential housing projects designed with residential towers above a podium.
Active Ground Floor Use and Design
Phase 1 implementation of the Housing Element (zoning amendments) resulted in allowing residential uses within the entire ground floor of projects and no longer requiring ground floor commercial in mixed-use residential. While this flexibility is 16 of 46
provided in the BAP, staff believes the addition of commercial uses and services to the area would be vital in ensuring that the area develops into more of a complete neighborhood with walkable streets.
The BAP identified a Retail Priority Corridor and a Pedestrian Priority Corridor that established requirements for certain streets considered to be the “spine” of Bergamot, such as Nebraska and Pennsylvania. Because the BAP currently lacks commercial uses and services that would support future residents in the area, staff has identified a central area around Nebraska and Pennsylvania Avenues that would serve as a potential corridor of ground floor active commercial uses. This is consistent with the BAP vision that identifies this area where commercial should be provided. The proposal identifies these limited areas to require commercial uses to support the anticipated increase of residents in the area. All other areas in the BAP will remain flexible and not include a ground floor commercial requirement with an active use area. The standard is as follows:
• Active use areas are required to have a minimum average depth of 35 feet, but no less than 20 feet, for a minimum of 60% of the ground-floor frontage.
Building Frontage Line
Similar to the existing building frontage line standard in the DCP, staff proposes to apply this standard in the BAP. Essentially, this standard is a building setback that is measured from the curb to the building facade. Different from traditional front setbacks that are measured from the front parcel line, this standard is based on existing sidewalk widths/conditions that result in a corresponding amount of setback from the street. The result are setbacks that are determined based on existing sidewalk/public right of way size conditions to ensure there is adequate open space at the front of the property so that buildings and open space at the sidewalk is scaled appropriately to accommodate pedestrians, outdoor dining, or other outdoor amenities. 17 of 46
Figure 1: Building Frontage Line
Staff surveyed existing sidewalk widths and conditions in the Bergamot area.
Particularly along Berkeley and Stanford Streets within the centralized area, existing sidewalks are quite narrow and, in some cases, less than 5 feet in width. Existing sidewalk widths are generally inconsistent with some areas that have no sidewalk. The BAP attempted to address this with some building setbacks from the property line.
Setbacks are proposed for different streets throughout BAP that would support the overall vision of a walkable neighborhood while allowing for the possibility of ground floor outdoor space on private property that could support ground floor commercial uses. Coupled with the active commercial use focused around Nebraska and Pennsylvania Avenues, this standard seeks to create a physical environment on the ground floor where active commercial uses can thrive. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the original BAP vision and further simplified for ease of use. Below is a diagram map of the BAP that establishes the building frontage line for each street in the area that will be included as part of the development standards. 18 of 46
Figure 2: Building Frontage Line Map
1. Nebraska Avenue between Stewart Street and Berkeley Street: 20’
2. Pennsylvania Avenue between 26th Street and Stewart Street: 20’
3. Stewart Street between Colorado Avenue and Nebraska Avenue: 20’
4. Colorado Avenue between Stewart Street and Stanford Street: 15’
5. Olympic Boulevard between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue: 15’
6. Stanford Street between Colorado Avenue and Nebraska Avenue: 10’
7. Berkeley Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Nebraska Avenue: 10’
8. All other streets: 10’
Council Focus for Discussion
New Concepts for Maximizing Open Space in the BAP
Based on a review of approved, constructed, and pending housing projects, staff found that developers are providing more on-site open space than the minimum required by 19 of 46
Code. Staff also engaged designers from AECOM to conduct test-fit modelling for onsite open space to determine how best to increase on-site open space in a feasible manner. AECOM also reviewed open space requirements of other cities in the region to compare and evaluate the amount of open space required for their housing projects for a right-size approach. This evaluation was performed in response to Council’s interest to increase open space requirements in recognition of the substantially larger parcel sizes in Bergamot.
The revised open space approach for Bergamot combines the two methods in which open space is required in the zoning code: 1) an open space requirement per dwelling unit that applies in non-residential zoning districts and 2) an open space requirement based on a parcel size, which is required in the Downtown Community Plan. Since housing projects in the BAP will generally be larger due to existing parcel size, implementing both requirements ensures that the amount of open space is achieved commensurate with the size of the parcel and with the number of residents living in the project.
Based on Council direction, staff developed this new hybrid approach to open space regulations that are guided by the following concepts:
• Maximize open space opportunities for new housing projects, with an emphasis on providing open space at the ground floor and adjacent to the public right-of-way;
• Enhance the ground floor and pedestrian experience in anticipation of larger developments and a growing residential community;
• Implement the original vision of the Bergamot Area Plan to create an improved street and pedestrian network by encouraging the development of pathways and open space.
The proposed standards include a per-unit requirement of 150 square feet in which 30% is provided as private (patios, balconies, etc.) and 70% provided as common open space (can be provided anywhere in the project). Additionally, a minimum of 12% of the 20 of 46
total site area is required to be provided as common open space located on the groundlevel. The proposed amount of open space is considerably higher compared to open space standards citywide relative to both the size of the development and parcel sizes within the BAP. AECOM’s modeling of existing parcels in the BAP indicates the proposed open space standards are feasible. Furthermore, this aligns with Council’s direction on ensuring there is adequate open space for future BAP residents. The table below includes the proposed amount of open space for projects that would apply to all zoning districts in the BAP.
Open Space Standards for Residential Uses
Minimum Amount of Common Open Space at Ground Level
(% of Site Area) 12%
Minimum amount of the 12% ground level open space that
must be provided adjacent to the sidewalk 20%
Minimum Outdoor Living Area (sq. ft./unit)—Sites with 3 or More Units (includes private and common) 150 sf/unit
Minimum Amount Provided as Private Outdoor Living Area
(% of 150 sq. ft./unit total above)
30%
Minimum Amount Provided as Common Outdoor Living
Area (% of 150 sq. ft./unit total above)
70%
Ground Level Open Space (12% of Site Area)
To ensure that the 12% ground-level open space is designed in a manner that promotes a walkable neighborhood, 20% of this ground level open space is required to be provided adjacent to the sidewalk. Ground-level open space must be open to the sky with a 20% maximum that can be covered (shade structures and awnings would not count as covered area). Additionally, a minimum dimension for this open space abutting the sidewalk would be required for larger parcels whereas smaller parcels with less design flexibility would be incentivized to place adequate open space at the sidewalk.
Ground Level Pedestrian Pathways
Pedestrian pathway connections through housing projects would help improve pedestrian mobility throughout the area consistent with BAP goals to create a walkable neighborhood for future residents. The intent is for projects to design ground level 21 of 46
pedestrian passageways through larger sites that extend through the length and or width of a parcel to connect adjacent sidewalks, common spaces, and adjacent parcels where feasible. This requirement would apply to parcels greater than one acre in size and include special standards for the pathways, including a minimum average dimension of 20 feet in width with a minimum of 80% open to the sky. Landscape and pedestrian amenities would include but not limited to minimum landscape and hardscape percentages, seating, and lighting requirements. Applicability of these pathways would be as follows:
• Site One Acre or Greater
o Minimum one ground level pedestrian pathway is required and must comply with required design features.
• Special Administrative Process Incentive for Large Sites (over one acre, new concept further described below)
o As a baseline requirement, in addition to the commitments associated with the special process incentive program, minimum 1 ground level pedestrian pathway is required and must comply with required design features.
New Concept for Consideration (Not Required for Housing Element Compliance):
Special Administrative Processing Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites (over one acre) that Support BAP Vision for Open Space and Connections Staff proposes for Council’s consideration an optional open space incentive program that would be available for housing projects proposed on large sites over one acre but not more than three acres.
Currently, housing projects proposed on parcels less than an acre are reviewed administratively (Administrative Approval), while projects on parcels greater than an acre are subject to discretionary review (Development Review Permit). The upper limit of three acres is based on staff’s review of parcel sizes (Figure 3), modelling potential parcel consolidation in the Bergamot area that would support the BAP vision of 22 of 46
connected open spaces, and consideration of current policy related to size thresholds for administrative review for housing projects.
Figure 3: Large Parcel Incentive Program: Parcel Sizes
This voluntary incentive program seeks to further implement BAP circulation goals and policies that are no longer achievable due to the elimination of Development Agreements for housing projects. Such circulation goals include new streets and pedestrian pathway connections to improve pedestrian mobility through the area that is anticipated to develop considerably with new housing consistent with the updated Housing Element. The program would allow housing projects on parcels greater than an acre, but no more than three acres, to be subject to the Administrative Approval process, provided the project provides significant project features that support important housing and circulation goals and policies. The voluntary incentive program would also 23 of 46
incentivize certain development standards that are commonly waived through the density bonus process.
Housing projects on sites over one acre but no larger than three acres would qualify for Administrative Approval (no public formal hearing), if the project supports the BAP vision by including all of the following:
• Unit Mix Requirement:
o Maximum 15% Studios
o Minimum 15% 2BR units
o Minimum 10% 3BR units
• Minimum Ground Level Open Space Requirement – 14% of Site Area o At least 30% of ground level open space must be adjacent to the street. o One portion of the ground level open space adjacent to the street shall have a minimum size of 600 sf and minimum dimension of 20’ x 10’. o Any fence, wall or hedge around the required ground floor open space shall not exceed 42 inches unless the ground floor open space is adjacent to an internal parcel line.
o Must be open to the public during certain hours and not exclusive to project residents.
• Ground Level Pedestrian Pathway or New Street
o Pedestrian pathways would be subject to the design standards discussed above (size/dimension, landscape/amenities, etc.).
o Each shall be dedicated for public use (e.g. surface easement) that are consistent with street network map (Figure 7.01) in the Bergamot Area Plan, if one is identified on the site.
o Vehicular lanes or parking shall not count towards the project’s open space requirement.
24 of 46
Because this would be a voluntary incentive program, such qualifying requirements could not be modified or eliminated via State Density Bonus waivers or concessions.
This is an important factor considering that the City is limited in its ability in requiring these project features that are important in furthering City housing goals and circulation policies in the BAP. Council should consider the potential benefits of achieving these project features in housing projects that are vital for the BAP’s future development; this would guarantee that a housing project under the program provide the City’s desired residential unit mix including larger unit sizes, significant and meaningful open space adjacent to the public realm that helps to establish a walkable neighborhood, and pedestrian passageways that would be available for public use to improve the overall pedestrian circulation and connection through larger parcels and blocks within the area.
Planning Commission Recommendations on Proposed BAP Standards The Planning Commission recommends that the Council approve the proposed standards but also recommended changes to the proposed special process incentive program for housing projects on sites over one acre. Summarized below are the standards presented to the Planning Commission along with any changes or additional recommendations made by the Commission for Council to consider.
Concept Presented to Planning
Commission
Recommendation of Planning
Commission
Maximize Open Space
Particularly at the
Ground Floor
Open Space Requirements:
12% of parcel area required as
ground floor open space, with
20% of that total required
adjacent to the right-of-way.
Additionally, projects are required
to provide 150 SF/unit for
common and private residential
outdoor space.
Pedestrian Pathway Requirement:
Parcels over 1 acre provide a
pedestrian pathway connecting
open space, right-of-way, or
adjacent parcel. Includes design
standards like open to the sky,
landscaping, seating, and
No changes to staff
recommendation.
25 of 46
Concept Presented to Planning
Commission
Recommendation of Planning
Commission
lighting.
Enhance Ground Floor
and Pedestrian
Experience
Building Frontage Line:
Setback between the curb and
building face is required, ranging
from 10’ to 20’ based on street
frontage. Frontage is based on
existing conditions and required
ground floor commercial on
Pennsylvania and Nebraska Ave.
Private Outdoor Living Area Adjacent
to a Street:
Fencing around private outdoor
living area may not exceed 5’ and
must be 50% transparent over
42’’. This is consistent with DCP
requirements.
Reduce the maximum fence,
wall, hedge height for all
ground-level private outdoor
living area associated with
residential use to 4.5’, a height
that allows for visual sight lines.
Implement Original
BAP Vision for
Improved Pathways
and Public Open
Space
New Process Incentive:
Implement the BAP outdoor
space and pathway vision
through incentives, rather than
agreements as originally
envisioned in the BAP. Create a
requirement for:
1. Public pathways;
2. Unit mix; and
3. Additional ground floor open
space required for all
participants (from 12% to
14%).
If provided, the applicant would
receive an administrative process
incentive for large sites between
one and three acres. Since this
program would be optional, the
requirements cannot be waived
via State Density Bonus law.
Capture the greatest
opportunities for public
pathways by expanding the
program to include any parcel
greater than one acre in the
BAP (i.e. no three acre cap). In
addition to Staff’s
recommendation, PC’s
recommendation would create a
requirement for:
1. Additional ground floor open
space only required for
parcels greater than 2.25
acres;
2. Increase the allowable
covered open space to
25%.
If Council prefers a parcel size
cap PC recommends no lower
than four acres.
Staff’s Response to PC Recommendations
Below are staff’s comments in response to the Commission’s recommendations:
1. Maximum fence, wall, hedge height for private living area on the ground-level shall be 4’-6”. The recommendation would be to reduce the maximum proposed 26 of 46
fence, wall and hedge height by 6 inches however would allow the entire fence, wall, or hedge to be non-transparent.
Staff continues to recommend maximum height of 5 feet with portions above 3’-6” at 50% visually transparent balances privacy and security needs for ground level private open space associated with residential units while still maintaining visibility and connection to the street. The 50% transparency allows for greater design flexibility and results in a use of materials that provides visual interest in its design.
2. New Special Administrative Processing Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites (over one acre and no greater than three acres):
a. Expand program to apply to any parcel greater than one acre in size (with no maximum size threshold) in the BAP. If a maximum threshold is considered, it should be no less than four acres in size.
As discussed, the upper limit of three acres is based on staff’s review of parcel sizes, modelling potential parcel consolidation in the Bergamot area that would support the BAP vision of connected open spaces, and consideration of current thresholds for administrative review for housing projects. Figure 3 above shows existing parcel sizes within the BAP area.
In its discussion of the Commission’s recommendation, the Council may weigh the potential opportunity of securing greater open space, larger residential units, and improved circulation/mobility through larger parcels in all housing projects on parcels greater than an acre and whether expanding streamlined review for projects on larger sites within the BAP area would be appropriate in further achieving the relative BAP goals and policies.
b. The required ground-level open space of 14% of parcel area should only apply to parcels greater than 2.25 acres (parcels between 1 acre and 2.25 acres would be limited to 12%). The intent is to ensure that project sites 27 of 46
between one acre and 2.25 acres are incentivized to participate in the program and that small sites within the range are not unduly impacted by the higher 14% ground-level open space amount.
Staff continues to recommend that all projects under the program on parcels greater than one acre provide 14% of parcel area as ground-level open space. This is based on open space modelling conducted by AECOM showing that 14% is feasible for housing projects on sites of one acre and greater. Accordingly, staff does not believe the higher 14% (opposed to 12%) would become a barrier for project sites between 1 –
2.25 acres.
c. Allow an option to increase the allowable covered open space requirement from 20% to 25% (+5%) provided the ground floor area below the covered space has a minimum 20 feet of height clearance.
This is an additional design option intended to allow greater design flexibility in allowing for a greater amount of covered space up to 25%, provided the height of the open space beneath is at least 20 feet in height.
In the case of a cantilevered portion of the upper floors covering the pathway, this would ensure that the space has a desirable height clearance for pedestrians.
Considering many of the housing projects on larger sites would likely be based according to the tower/podium design, staff does not anticipate that housing projects in the BAP would be designed with cantilevered upper floors as commonly designed within the DCP due to parcel size limitations.
As such, staff does not believe the proposed option would be as effective in the BAP as it may be in other districts comprised of smaller parcels and less flexibility in building footprint locations and how ground level open space is designed/achieved.
28 of 46
Policy Question #2:
• Assuming that Council is interested in offering a special incentive program for housing projects on sites over 1 acre in the Bergamot area, should there be a cap on parcel size to qualify for this voluntary special process incentive program?
Planning Commission Recommendation Staff Recommendation • No limit to parcel size but would suggest four
acre cap if there is Council preference for a
cap
• three acre cap
Policy Question #3:
• Should there be other commitments to be considered in this voluntary special process incentive program?
New Standards for Density Bonus Buildings Over 90 Feet in Height (Towers) Several preliminary SB330 applications have been received for taller housing projects that range between 18-34 stories in the Bergamot area. These taller projects are proposing to utilize State density bonus law. These building designs include a podium base building with a narrower tower that projects above the podium level. Because those applications are vested to the standards in place at the time of filing of the preliminary application, none of the new standards being developed will apply to the preliminary applications.
It should also be noted that any objective design standard that is created could be modified or waived through provisions in State density bonus law. As a result, the consultation process has necessarily included the development community as a means of testing concepts with the aim of finding alignment between the City’s design values and the feasibility of housing projects.
29 of 46
At their June 11, 2024, study session on Housing Element Phase 2 implementation, City Council directed that taller building standards shall be based on the following principles:
• Minimum height at which taller building standards apply • Maximum tower footprint
• Minimum tower spacing
• Maximum podium footprint
• Maximum podium height
• Sunlight, shadow, and shade
Since that time, staff completed consultation with the technical working group and study sessions with the Architectural Review Board. In order to determine the threshold at which taller building standards should apply, staff reviewed all approved and pending housing projects from the past year to understand the variation in building height that is being proposed in density bonus projects. As a result, a threshold of 90 feet is proposed that would allow the vast majority of projects to proceed under typical standards while buildings over 90 feet would be subject to taller building standards.
Staff recommends the following as key standards for taller buildings:
• Maximum Allowable Podium Height: 35 feet
• Maximum Podium Footprint: 35,000 square feet (housing projects) • Maximum Tower Footprint: 12,000 square feet
• Minimum Tower Spacing: Minimum spacing between closest points of all tower facades: 80 feet
• Minimum Offset Tower Spacing: Minimum spacing between closest points of all towers that are diagonally opposite: 40 feet
These key standards would be additional standards applicable to projects with buildings exceeding 90 feet in height. The baseline development standards including but not limited to building frontage line, pedestrian-oriented design, and open space would also apply. Other standards related to building modulation such as roofline variation would not apply to a podium with tower building type.
30 of 46
The Planning Commission was supportive of these standards and had no comments or further recommendations.
Mandatory Implementation of Phase 2 Housing Element Programs ➢ Program 1.B Streamline the Architectural Review Process and Ensure Design Review Objectivity for Housing Projects
Program Language:
“The City shall adopt new streamlining procedures to allow staff level design review for smaller housing projects and expedited design review of larger housing projects by shifting the design review process to before or concurrently with entitlement issuance. This will reduce processing timelines and increase certainty for housing providers. These procedural changes would involve amending the Municipal Code to assure that design review cannot unreasonably delay a housing project approval by, for example, placing limits on number of hearings and maximum time limits for design review. The amendments shall also be clear that design review cannot be used to reduce density or deny a housing project. Additionally, the City shall develop objective design standards anticipating compliance with SB35 for applicable housing projects.” Summary of Changes:
As previously stated in the May 8, 2024, staff report, Program 1.B has already been mostly implemented as part of Phase I implementation for the Housing Element.
Furthermore, on June 30, 2023, HCD determined that Santa Monica (based on its Annual Progress Report) fell behind on addressing lower-income housing needs for the 5th Cycle Housing Element and as such, the City was subject to SB 35 for housing projects that include more than 50% of their units as affordable units. Therefore, on December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance which was extended on February 13, 2024 that established objective design standards for housing projects that qualify for the streamlined, ministerial approval process as 31 of 46
required by SB 35. Most recently, however as of June 3, 2024, HCD determined that Santa Monica is no longer subject to SB 35 (now SB 423) streamlining requirements based on the last Annual Progress Report submitted to HCD.
Nonetheless, should the City be subject to SB 35 in the future, text amendments are proposed to Section 9.31.195 Multiple Unit Dwelling Projects to indicate that qualifying projects that elect to use SB 35 must comply with the objective design standards established by resolution of the City Council.
To complete implementation of Program 1.B, text amendments are proposed to Chapter
9.55, Architectural Review, of the Zoning Ordinance to:
• Ensure that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) cannot reduce density or have the effect of denying a housing project.
• Establish that the ARB shall take action on the project within no more than three noticed public hearings
Based on a review of data for processing the design review application for recent housing projects submitted since June 2023, design review applications are being efficiently processed in an average of approximately 60 days from application submittal to approval. The vast majority of applications are approved in one public hearing.
However, the proposal to allow up to three public hearings, unless limited by State law, is intended to allow sufficient opportunity for an applicant to be responsive to comments raised by the ARB.
➢ Program 1.I Ensure That Local Regulations Support Innovations in Construction Technology to the Extent Technically Feasible Program Language:
“The City shall support innovative lower-cost, efficient and environmentally sustainable construction techniques for housing. Program shall implement a streamlined building permit review process for housing projects utilizing 32 of 46
innovative construction methods and technology, and project-based outcome oriented permitting benchmarks.”
Summary of Changes:
Under the Health and Safety Code Section 19981, the City is prohibited from 1) requiring the review of any Factory Built Housing (FBH) plans or charge plan check fees when plans have already been approved by HCD or an HCD-approved third-party Design Approval Agency or 2) requiring the alteration of the FBH in order to meet the local code requirements other than local use zone requirements, local snow load requirements, local wind pressure requirements, local fire zones, building setback, side and rear yard requirements, site development and property line requirements, as well as the review and regulation of architectural and aesthetic requirements.
Section 9.31.180, Manufactured Housing, of the Zoning Ordinance currently establishes design and development standards for manufactured housing. This section would be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the City is compliant with State regulations for manufactured housing.
➢ Program 2.B Right of First Offer Ordinance for Nonprofit Affordable Housing Providers
Program Language:
“Promote the use of SB1079 (2020) which created a new foreclosure sale process for 2-4 unit buildings that allows qualified parties a means to purchase property in foreclosure, subject to certain requirements. Building off this state law, the City shall consider adopting a Right of First Offer Ordinance that would provide nonprofit affordable housing providers the right of first offer for a specified time period to acquire private properties outside of foreclosure as they become available for purchase. As part of this effort, the City shall prioritize the scope of properties that would most effectively achieve the goal of making nonprofit housing providers more competitive in the land buying market for the purpose of preserving or producing affordable housing. Given the lack of an 33 of 46
identified funding source to assist nonprofit affordable housing providers in purchase of multi-unit residential buildings through this program, explore funding sources, including grants and loans, that would contribute to the acquisition/rehabilitation quantified objective of 40 units. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable.”
Summary of Changes:
Program 2.B directs the City to consider the opportunity for a right of first offer ordinance, which would allow non-profit affordable housing providers the first offer to purchase properties, granting them an advantage over market rate developers. This program was derived from State Bill 1079, which created a new sale process for foreclosed properties of 2 to 4 units. The bill, effective January 1, 2021, requires foreclosed homes to be sold individually to single buyers, rather than by private corporations in bulk. The state law sets a new process where, once an initial bid is made on a multi-family property, the foreclosed property must then be offered to tenants, local governments, and affordable housing developers to expand home ownership opportunities.
The City has the opportunity to build off of this law to provide non-profit housing providers the right of first offer on all properties, including those outside of foreclosure, granting them a competitive edge in the market. Cities have adopted variations of right of first offer ordinances, such as San Francisco, San Diego, and Berkeley.
Right of first offer provides the City an opportunity to preserve the existing housing stock and can be tailored to prioritize the preservation of certain types of units, like San Diego’s proposed ordinance that applies to properties with at-risk deed restricted units set to expire.
Typically, as seen in ordinances proposed by cities like Berkeley or San Diego, right of first offer ordinances require residential landlords to notify a list of predetermined purchasers of the sale before putting a property on the market. In San Diego the list is composed of pre-qualified affordable housing providers. In addition to affordable housing providers, the City of Berkeley also offers existing tenants the right of first refusal.
34 of 46
While these programs may be effective in preserving existing, at-risk affordable housing stock, there is a cost associated with the development and maintenance of such a program. For an ordinance to be effective, affordable providers would benefit from significant financial assistance to compete against market rate providers, and several full-time staff would also be needed to track for-sale properties and ensure the property sales are being noticed in compliance with the program.
More information on existing ordinances in other cities, along with the cost of these programs, are included in an informational memo provided in Attachment F. ➢ Program 2.C Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) to Increase the Number of Affordable Housing Units at all Income Levels
Program Language:
“In order to increase the number of affordable housing units at all income levels such that 15% of all new multi-unit residential housing units are affordable to low and moderate income households and aim to achieve the Quantified Objective for lower income households as shown in Figure 5-1, Chapter 5, the AHPP onsite and off-site option for housing projects located outside of the Downtown shall be revised to maximize the contributions of the AHPP to achieving the RHNA affordable housing allocation and advancing the City’s affordable housing goals.
Areas to be considered may include, but not be limited to:
• Increase the threshold (to at least 6 units) at which projects are required to provide on-site or off-site affordable units;
• Eliminate the current “menu” option of affordability requirements and instead establish a new base affordability percentage;
• Re-evaluate the in-lieu fee option for applicants to pay a fee instead of constructing affordable units to ensure that the fee supports the funding and construction of new affordable housing throughout the City; 35 of 46
• Evaluate the possibility of a mixed-compliance option that would provide applicants more flexibility in meeting AHPP requirements; • Increase the minimum percentage of required off-site affordable units to be higher than the on-site option;
• Allow projects to locate off-site affordable housing anywhere in the City that is not a disadvantaged area as defined by SB535, which includes socioeconomic and environmental metrics; and
• Allow market-rate projects to comply with AHPP off-site option through acquisition and rehabilitation of existing rental units and converting those to deed-restricted units.”
Summary of Changes:
At the City Council hearing on April 23, 2024, the Council adopted updates to the City’s density bonus ordinance (Chapter 9.22 of the Zoning Ordinance) to implement AB 1287.
The Planning Commission provided a letter to Council requesting Council direct that the City Manager study the creation of a local density bonus program for off-site affordable housing units. After discussion of the Planning Commission’s request, the Council did not move forward with the Planning Commission’s request to study a local density bonus program if a project provides off-site affordable units.
Although Program 2.C is considered complete, minor clean-up corrections and amendments are proposed to Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program, of the Zoning Ordinance to:
• Make clear that consistent with State Density Bonus law, projects of five or more units may elect to provide affordable housing units on-site to qualify for State Density Bonus rather than pay the in-lieu fee.
• Clarify that the residential replacement unit requirements of State law override the City’s affordability level requirements of the AHPP. • Revise language regarding dispersal requirements of affordable units to align with Health and Safety Code.
36 of 46
• Include language regarding timing for payment of in-lieu affordable housing fees for vested projects.
➢ Program 2.I Zoning for A Variety of Housing Types Including Special Needs Housing and Housing Access for Persons with Disabilities Program Language:
“The City shall review and update the Zoning Ordinance and BAP, as applicable, to ensure consistency with State law regarding special needs housing types and residential land use classifications. Review and expected revisions will include, but are not limited to, updating parking requirements for Emergency Shelters pursuant to AB 139, the city’s definition of “household”, and land use requirements for Residential Care Facilities for seven or more persons to promote objectivity and approval certainty.”
Summary of Changes:
Program 2.I requires the review and necessary updating of all residential land use classifications for compliance with State law and the removal of any barriers that conflict with access to fair housing. To demonstrate compliance with this program, staff proposes text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that includes the following:
• Revisions to residential use classification for compliance with applicable State laws. This includes, but is not limited to, updated use classification definitions (SMMC Section 9.51.020), classification specific requirements (SMMC Chapter
9.31), and land use regulation tables (SMMC Zoning Ordinance Division 2) as to how and where residential land uses are permitted.
• Reorganization of land use classifications (SMMC Section 9.51.020) and regulation tables (SMMC Zoning Ordinance Division 2) to better differentiate between Residential Dwelling Types (e.g.: Single-Unit Dwelling, Multiple-Unit Dwelling) and Housing Types for Specific Needs (e.g.: Group Residential, Residential Care Facilities, Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing). 37 of 46
• Revisions to SMMC Chapter 9.52 definitions of “household” and “disability” to eliminate barriers to fair housing by removing the requirement of a single mortgage, lease, or rental agreement for all members and to align with State law, respectively.
• Updating SMMC Chapter 9.49, Reasonable Accommodations, to remove barriers to fair housing.
Staff has coordinated the proposed text amendments in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office regarding fair housing compliance and the Housing and Human Services Department.
➢ Program 3.A Restrict the Removal of Existing Rental Units for Site Redevelopment And Require That Protected Units Are Replaced Program Language:
“The City shall amend the Municipal Code to adopt local requirements that make permanent and potentially expand upon the anti-displacement requirements of SB 330 to ensure that 100% of all protected units proposed to be demolished in order to construct a new housing development project are replaced. As required by Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3), the City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that sites that currently have residential use, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that (1) are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income (approximately 1,150 deed-restricted affordable units within market-rate housing projects on private property), or (2) subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power (approximately 27,484 units), or (3) within the past five years were occupied by low or very low income households, shall be required to replace all of those units as affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any 38 of 46
development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth Government Code Section 65915(c)(3).”
Summary of Changes:
AB 1218 was passed in 2023 by the State legislature to expand the replacement unit requirements of Government Code Section 66300(d) to also apply to commercial projects. Under State law, the City is prohibited from approving any development project that will demolish occupied or vacant “protected units”. Protected units that are demolished on or after January 1, 2020, must be replaced prior to or concurrent with the project. Protected units include:
1. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past 5 years.
2. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past 5 years.
3. Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past 5 years.
4. Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with the Ellis Act within the past 10 years [Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1].
Staff proposes to add new Chapter 9.34, Residential Unit Replacement Requirements, to the Zoning Ordinance, which would require that:
• All projects comply with all applicable residential unit replacement requirements, including, but not limited to, Government Code Section 66300 et seq. • Pursuant to Council direction provided on June 11, 2023, where existing units to be demolished are rent-controlled and the last household in occupancy earned moderate or above moderate income, the replacement units in these instances shall be rent controlled.
39 of 46
• Projects that do not result in new construction and would not involve the reduction of protected units would not be subject to this Chapter. • In the event of a conflict between the onsite affordable requirements the City’s AHPP and State law replacement units requirements, the replacement unit replacements will control.
➢ Program 5.B Low Barrier Navigation Centers as By-Right Use Program Language:
“The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a by-right permitted use in all non-residential zones permitting multiunit uses.” Summary of Changes:
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019, requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center be a use permitted by-right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multipleunit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines Low Barrier Navigation Center as a “housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing”.
To demonstrate compliance with Program 5.B, in conjunction with Program 2.I, staff proposes text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a new Low Barrier Navigation Center land use classification in compliance with State law. This includes, but is not limited to, creating a new land use classification definition (SMMC Section
9.51.020), creating land use specific requirements (SMMC Section 9.31.175), and incorporating the new land use throughout the city’s land use regulation tables (SMMC Zoning Ordinance Division 2). City Planning staff worked interdepartmentally with Human Services staff to ensure compliance and facilitation. 40 of 46
Changes for Consistency with State Law
SB 684 (Ministerial Streamlining for Ownership Housing of 10 units or Less) Senate Bill 684 was passed in 2023 and went into effect July 1, 2024. Under this new State law, ownership housing projects of 10 units or less are streamlined with no public hearing for the subdivision map. Additionally, these ownership projects are afforded:
• Minimum side and rear setbacks of 4 feet or retain existing setbacks if project is reconstructed within the same footprint
• 60 days to approve tentative tract map from completed application Changes have been made to Table 9.08.030 (Multi-Unit Residential Districts) and Table
9.09.030 (Ocean Park District) of the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the above setback requirements.
SB 684 also allows a jurisdiction to prohibit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) and SB9 urban lot splits when a project utilizes these provisions of State law. As no direction has been received from City Council regarding expanding the provisions on SB684, the proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance prohibit ADUs/JADUs and SB9 urban lot splits when a project utilizes the streamlined process in SB 684.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance establishes minimum side and rear setbacks in the Multi-Unit Residential Districts of 8 feet and 15 feet, respectively. With SB 684, the City cannot impose side and rear setbacks of more than 4 feet for ownership housing projects of 10 units or less. This results in inconsistent application of setback requirements depending on ownership versus rental housing projects.
Policy Question #4:
Should rental housing projects in the multi-unit dwelling districts have the same minimum setbacks as ownership housing projects?
41 of 46
Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission agreed, that the minimum setback requirement of 4 feet be applied regardless of the type of housing project (i.e., ownership vs. rental). Staff believes that application of a uniform setback of 4 feet is appropriate given that the City has not had any rental housing projects in the Multi-Unit Residential Districts in the last 10 years.
AB 1033 (Accessory Dwelling Unit Ownership)
On October 24, 2023, the City Council gave direction to staff to support AB 1033 and, upon the governor’s signature, draft a local ordinance to allow the separate sale or conveyance of the primary dwelling unit and ADU or ADUs as condominiums. AB 1033 was signed by the Governor on October 11, 2023, and became effective on January 1, 2024. In response to this direction, staff proposes amending the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Section 9.31.026, Accessory Dwelling Unit Condominiums, to incorporate provisions for ADU ownership pursuant to AB 1033. This new section includes, but is not limited to, the authorization for separate sale or conveyance of ADUs through creation of condominiums and establishment of a ministerial subdivision process for projects that result in four or fewer airspace parcels. This ordinance does not authorize the establishment of more ADUs than are otherwise permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
AB 602 (Development Impact Fee Payment Timing)
Assembly Bill 602 was passed in 2021 and came into effect on January 1, 2022.
Amongst other requirements regarding the establishment and implementation of Development Impact Fees, AB 602 only permits a jurisdiction to collect applicable fees for a project upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs last. As some of Santa Monica’s impact fees currently require payment prior to issuance of building permit, revisions have been made to Sections
9.30.140 (Cultural Arts Development Contribution), 9.65.040 (Child Care Linkage Fee),
9.66.040 (Transportation Impact Fee), 9.67.040 (Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee), and 9.68.040 (Affordable Husing Commercial Linkage Fee) to align payment collection timelines with AB 602.
42 of 46
Government Code Section 65583.2 – Ministerial Approval for Lower Income Shortfall Sites
Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i) requires that where the Housing Element identifies a shortfall of sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower income households, sites shall be rezoned to permit multifamily residential use by right for developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households during the planning period. As established in the City’s Housing Element Program 1.K, Cityowned Sites were identified to “make up” for the lower-income shortfall. Therefore, as required implementation of Housing Element Program 1.K and pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i), Section 9.39.020 of the Zoning Ordinance has been revised to allow for administrative approval of:
• Housing projects proposed on a City-owned site, as identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, where at least 20% of the project’s units are made affordable and available to lower-income households.
• Any project with at least 50% residential proposed on City-owned sites, where 20% of the project’s units are made affordable to lower-income households. that are sold or leased and used to satisfy the City’s shortfall of lower income units as identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element.
Other Revisions as Necessary for Cleanup and Clarity
Since adoption of the Housing Element Phase 1 amendments, staff has also identified various sections in the Zoning Ordinance, DCP, and LUCE requiring minor revisions for cleanup and clarification purposes. These revisions are provided in the table below:
Topic Where Revision is Made Description of Revision
Administrative
Approval –
Applicability
Section 9.39.020(A) Correct incorrect reference to
Moderate Income Housing
Overlay project
SB 9 Duplexes and
Lot Splits on Parcels
zoned for Single Unit
Residential – Lot
Splits
Section 9.31.125 Consistent with SB 9, add
clarification language that is
declarative of existing State law
to indicate:
• Easements may be required
for the provision of public
43 of 46
Topic Where Revision is Made Description of Revision
services and facilities for lot
splits.
• An affidavit shall be required
to indicate an owner’s intent
to live in one of the housing
units as their principal
residence for 3 years.
• Clarify that if owner is not a
natural person(s), the affidavit
shall be signed by a natural
person with a controlling
interest in the entity that owns
the parcel.
Mezzanines Section 9.08.030(e)(4) Remove phrase “appearance” as this language is not objective
Aggregate Setback Table 9.07.030 Add “or” to clarify how the aggregate setback requirement
is applied in the Single Unit
Residential District
Total vs Private Open
Space Requirement
Tables 9.08.030,
9.09.030, 9.11.030.A,
9.11.030.B, 9.13.030.A,
and 9.13.030.B, 9.14.030,
Clarify that required private open
space is part of the total amount
of open space required
Multiple-Unit Dwelling
Projects Located on
Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197 Clarify exemption for setback for
the commercial parcel
Active Commercial
Design Standards in
the Mixed Use and
Commercial Districts
Section 9.11.030(A)(3) Clarify that the term “Commercial Boulevards” are defined to
indicate that such streets are
identified in Chapter 9.52, Terms
and Definitions
Accessory Buildings
and Structures
Section 9.21.010(c)(4) Delete paragraph prohibiting full baths for consistency with prior
Council direction, language was
inadvertently left in
Fortune Telling and
Tattoo Parlors
Section 9.10.040,
9.11.020
Update land use tables to correct
inadvertent error in requiring
Minor Use Permit for tattoo
parlors and omitting
fortunetelling in Downtown and
Mixed Use Commercial Districts;
these have been corrected to
permitted uses consistent with
prior Zoning Ordinance
44 of 46
Topic Where Revision is Made Description of Revision
amendments
Vesting of
Development Impact
Fees
Sections 9.30.140,
9.64.070, 9.65.040,
9.66.040, 9.67.040, and
9.68.040
Clarify that impact fee may be
permitted vested rights under
State and local law
DCP Entitlement and
Tier System
DCP Section 2.A.4 Correct incorrect reference to the
Zoning Ordinance; reference
should be Chapter 9.64
DCP Entitlement and
Tier System
DCP Section 2.A.4 Delete last sentence for
consistency with State Density
Bonus law
DCP Application
Thresholds
DCP Section 9.10.050 Remove Administrative Approval
section and refer to Zoning
Ordinance for consistency
LUCE Policy 15.15
Preserve Light, Air
and Privacy between
Commercial and
Residential Properties
LUCE Page 2.1-22 As part of the Phase 1
implementation of the Housing
Element, the daylight plane/rear
yard step back requirements
were modified in the Zoning
Ordinance. Associated revisions
to the LUCE were inadvertently
overlooked; revise the language
to be more general
LUCE Rear Stepback
Requirements
Various pages in Chapter
2.1, land use policy and
designations
Per the above, delete text and
figures throughout the LUCE
LUCE Minimum
Ground Floor Floor-toFloor Height
Various pages in Chapter
2.1, land use policy and
designations
As part of the Phase 1
implementation of the Housing
Element, the minimum ground
floor floor-to floor height was
modified from 15 feet to 11 feet
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Associated revisions to the
LUCE were inadvertently
overlooked; revise the figures to
remove the incorrect height
references
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact 45 of 46
Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. These amendments implement the programs that were described and analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further environmental documentation is required.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. Implementation of the proposed amendments are necessary to comply with the certified Housing Element. If Santa Monica takes an action that is inconsistent with its certified Housing Element and falls out of compliance with Housing Element law, the City would be at risk of enforcement action from the State, up to and including judicial action, fines of at least $10,000 per month, loss of eligibility for grants and state funding programs, and loss of local control over land use decisions. The State has in recent years demonstrated its willingness to take legal action to compel cities to bring their Housing Elements into compliance.
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. CDD-Reso-LUCE HE Phase 2 Amendments 092424
B. CDD-Reso-Repeal BAP Chapter 5 092424
C. CDD-Reso-DCP HE Phase 2 Amendments 092424
D. CDD-Ord-6th Cycle HE Phase 2 092424
E. Attachment E - Omgivning Adaptive Reuse Physical Feasibility Testing (1) F. Attachment F - Right of First Offer Info Memo
G. Written Comments
46 of 46
H. PowerPoint Presentation